Discussion Title: Should renewable energy sources replace fossil fuels?

1. Renewable energy sources with sufficient energy storage should replace fossil fuels for grid power.
1.1. Con: There are more efficient sustainable options available that should be utilized instead of renewable energy sources.
1.1.1. Pro: Conventional nuclear plants have a better [Energy Returned on Energy Invested \(EROEI\) rate](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/11/eroi-a-tool-to-predict-the-best-energy-mix/) than renewables energy sources, which are barely economical.
1.1.1.1. Con: Generating power through nuclear plants has [high capital costs](https://thebulletin.org/2019/06/why-nuclear-power-plants-cost-so-much-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/).
1.1.1.1.1. Con: In the [long run](https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx), the costs of operating nuclear power plants reduce.
1.1.1.2. Pro: Investments in green energy have [not yielded a good return on investment](https://onlinebusiness.northeastern.edu/blog/does-investing-in-green-energy-produce-great-returns/)(Meanwhile, venture capitalists haven’t had much luck with their clean energy investments. According to Benjamin Gaddy, director of technology and development at Chicago-based startup Clean Energy Trust, venture capitalists set their sights on renewable energy back in 2006. Ten years later, there’s little to suggest their investments have paid off.\n\n“Ultimately, when we looked at the data, when we looked at companies that got venture-capital investment, \[clean-tech firms\] were slightly more risky \[than software or biomedical\], but the real difference was the returns,” Gaddy told the Wall Street Journal. “Those outsize multiples simply weren’t there.”) for venture capitalists.
1.1.2. Pro: Energy sources, such as [thorium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor) for LFTR Nuclear and Deuterium-Tritium for [fusion](https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/fusion-energy-future), are practically [infinite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power).
1.1.2.1. Con: These energy sources have not been technologically developed yet.
1.1.2.1.1. Pro: A controlled nuclear fusion reaction has [yet to be fully demonstrated](https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_\(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry\)/Nuclear_Chemistry/Fission_and_Fusion/Fission_and_Fusion).
1.1.2.1.2. Con: China has taken to leading the development of [thorium-powered reactors](https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/2181396/how-china-hopes-play-leading-role-developing-next-generation).
1.1.2.1.3. Pro: Although India has the world's third largest supply of thorium, there has been [little progress](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181016-why-india-wants-to-turn-its-beaches-into-nuclear-fuel)(India will also need to build up operational experience before any expansion, says Banerjee, and it will take time to breed the required fuel – roughly 10 years to double the plutonium to build another reactor. \n\nIt’s even longer for thorium, which is why plutonium will be used to build out the network before switching to thorium conversion. Extracting U233 from the spent thorium also poses daunting challenges, because another by-product of the fuel cycle is U232, which emits highly radioactive gamma rays.) in utilizing its thorium reserves for its nuclear reactors.
1.1.2.1.4. Con: In December 2020, scientists at the Joint European Torus began a [multi-billion dollar experiment](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00408-1) with tritium, and are seeking to fuse it with deuterium in June.
1.1.2.2. Pro: Thorium is even [more abundant](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx) that uranium and is a [safe and cheap](https://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/09/11/is-thorium-the-biggest-energy-breakthrough-since-fire-possibly/?sh=5b3e4ae146c2) source of power.
1.1.2.2.1. Con: Thorium can be incredibly [dangerous and potentially lethal,](https://www.nature.com/articles/492031a) and has the risk of being used in nuclear weapons.
1.1.2.2.2. Pro: If scientists continue to use "open" reactor systems where only small portions of uranium are used before being discarded, thorium would be worth using in case [uranium runs out.](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a11907/is-the-superfuel-thorium-riskier-than-we-thought-14821644/)(One possible exception that may make thorium more promising is its abundance. The world's thorium supply is estimated to be several times greater than that of uranium. If the world continues to use existing "open" reactor designs, which only use a small portion of the uranium fuel that passes through a reactor before being discarded as waste, then fuel scarcity could become an issue.\n\n"If you go to fast neutron reactors with a closed fuel cycle there is enough uranium for thousands of years," Dujardin says. "But if for any reason there are large difficulties with this option, thorium would be worth investigating.")
1.1.2.3. Con: It is not clear that the use of thorium would be the most cost effective in [reducing carbon output](https://www.wired.com/story/andrew-yang-wants-a-thorium-reactor-by-2027-good-luck-buddy/)("One of my concerns with the Yang climate plan is I think he probably just Googled "advanced nuclear," took a look at the top hits online, and ran with that,” says Kieran Dolan, a nuclear engineering graduate student at MIT’s Nuclear Reactor Lab. “If the goal is really carbon reduction and getting advanced nuclear reactors deployed, then I don't think thorium is the way to go.”).
1.1.2.3.1. Con: Thorium produces [less toxic waste](https://theconversation.com/thorium-is-no-silver-bullet-when-it-comes-to-nuclear-energy-but-it-could-play-a-role-1842)(Because the process starts off with a lighter nucleus \(thorium has 90 protons but uranium has 92\), fewer of the heavier element by-products are made. These constitute a significant part of very long-lived waste.) than the other choice for nuclear power, uranium.
1.1.2.3.2. Pro: Other renewable energy grids are [safer and less expensive](https://www.ecowatch.com/will-thorium-save-us-from-climate-change-1881859626.html)(If the choice is between keeping nuclear power facilities running or shutting them down and replacing them with coal-fired power plants, the nuclear option is best for the climate. But, for now, investing in renewable energy and smart-grid technologies is a faster, more cost-effective and safer option than building new nuclear facilities, regardless of type.) options for reducing carbon emissions than thorium technology.
1.1.2.4. Pro: Deuterium and tritium are [easy to come by,](https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsdeuterium-tritium-fusion-reactor-fuel) as there are tons of deuterium in oceans and tritium can be easily derived from lithium.
1.1.3. Con: Renewable energy sources may be essential until the others are developed.
1.1.3.1. Con: Nuclear energy has been in reliable use for [over 60 years](https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close).
1.1.3.1.1. Pro: Nuclear power plants are [relatively cheap to run](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx).
1.1.3.1.2. Con: -> See 1.1.1.1.
1.1.3.1.3. Pro: Nuclear power plants require less maintenance and can operate for longer stretches before needing to be refueled. \([p. 2](https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/01/f58/Ultimate%20Fast%20Facts%20Guide-PRINT.pdf)\)
1.1.3.2. Pro: A non-carbon based energy system will be essential in order to meet the objectives of the [Paris Agreement](https://www.activesustainability.com/climate-change/paris-agreement-road-map-next-steps/).
1.1.3.3. Pro: As of 2019, renewable energy sources account for [a third of the global power capacity](https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2019/Apr/renewable-energy-now-accounts-for-a-third-of-global-power-capacity).
1.1.4. Con: With the right drive and support, technology can progress rapidly if the underlying science is there.
1.1.4.1. Pro: Humans should not shy away from developing [new technologies](https://www.industry.gov.au/data-and-publications/australias-tech-future/introduction/digital-technologies-will-deliver-benefits-across-the-economy-and-society) that may significantly benefit and progress society.
1.1.4.2. Pro: [South Korea](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/11/south-korea-green-energy-hydrogen-future-city-fossil-fuel-renewables) is planning to create the first hydrogen-powered society by the use of fuel cell vehicles.
1.1.4.2.1. Pro: In South Korea, automakers such as [Hyundai Motor](https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/electric-power/061020-south-koreas-hydrogen-ambitions-propel-hyundai-motor-into-top-gear) are setting up the infrastructure for a hydrogen-powered society by opening up charging stations for hydrogen-powered commercial vehicles.
1.1.4.2.2. Pro: Five conglomerates in South Korea have committed to invest around [$38 billion](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-18/hydrogen-rivalry-intensifies-with-south-korea-challenging-europe) in hydrogen technology by 2030.
1.1.4.2.3. Con: Since hydrogen-powered projects [lack cost-competitiveness](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-18/hydrogen-rivalry-intensifies-with-south-korea-challenging-europe), it is unlikely that they will attract suitable financing.
1.1.4.2.4. Con: The South Korean government [does not have the policy consistency](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10098-020-01936-6) to successfully phase out its dependence on nuclear power, since a [majority of people in South Korea support nuclear power](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-nuclear-idUSKBN1CP06F).
1.1.4.3. Con: Technology shouldn't progress so fast that it disregards the respect for [human rights](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/the-surprising-stumbling-block-to-technological-progress-human-rights/).
1.1.4.3.1. Pro: The development, use and progress of technology [threatens our right to privacy](http://web.simmons.edu/~chen/nit/NIT%2796/96-025-Britz.html).
1.1.4.3.2. Pro: The implementation of technology in certain areas can result in [discriminatory practices](https://theconversation.com/why-technology-puts-human-rights-at-risk-92087).
1.1.4.3.3. Con: Legal protections are being developed to ensure that technological progress upholds human rights. \([p. 17](https://www.fordfoundation.org/media/2541/prima-hr-tech-report.pdf)\)
1.1.4.4. Con: Technology is not always beneficial or a [sign of progress](http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~unger/articles/technologyProgress.html).
1.1.5. Con: As an alternative non-renewable energy source, nuclear energy systems take longer to build and are [prone to construction delays](https://steps-centre.org/blog/nuclear-vs-renewables-whats-better-for-climate-mitigation/)(Technologically, nuclear systems have been prone to greater construction cost overruns, delays, and longer lead times than similarly sized renewable energy projects. Thus, per dollar invested, the modularity of renewables projects offers quicker emissions reductions than large-scale, delay-prone, nuclear projects.).
1.1.5.1. Pro: There is a huge [capital cost](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx) associated with constructing a nuclear plant, which includes equipment, engineering, and labor costs.
1.1.5.1.1. Con: The nuclear industry and research agencies have analyzed ways to [reduce costs](https://energy.mit.edu/news/building-nuclear-power-plants/)(Analysis of the scenarios suggests that technology development to reduce commodity usage and to automate construction could significantly reduce costs and increase resilience to changes in regulatory requirements and on-site conditions.) through the use of automation technology.
1.1.5.1.2. Con: Not all countries have experienced a cost increase when building nuclear plants; in contrast, some countries have found that the the costs of building nuclear plants have [gone down.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300106)
1.1.5.1.3. Pro: Compared to solar and wind, nuclear energy is [more expensive](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J) to generate, as well as more expensive to build and run.
1.1.5.1.4. Pro: There is also a high cost and long time investment associated with [decommissioning](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS178883596820110613) nuclear power plants once they are no longer in use.
1.1.5.2. Con: Nuclear experts have been holding meetings to look for solutions to [optimize](https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/nuclear-power-experts-explore-solutions-to-new-build-challenges-at-iaea-event)(Several methods for enhancing the efficiency of future new build projects and reducing risk uncertainty were identified. One such method involves establishing programme certainty and consistency through a coordinated, holistic approach. By engaging with all relevant parties and considering potential issues from the outset of a project, instead of dealing with problems as they arise, new build projects are likely to be implemented more smoothly and with fewer surprises, meeting participants agreed.) the construction of new nuclear power plants.
1.2. Pro: Biogas is a [viable replacement](https://edwarddebeer.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/biogas-vs-wind-energy-vs-solar-energy-2/) for natural gas as it can be introduced into the existing gas infrastructure.
1.2.1. Con: Although [natural gas is cleaner than coal and oil](https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/natural-gas-and-the-environment.php), it causes additional problems.
1.2.1.1. Pro: Natural gas can cause [earthquakes and other natural disasters](https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/does-production-oil-and-gas-shales-cause-earthquakes-if-so-how-are-earthquakes-related-these?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products).
1.2.1.2. Pro: Natural gas can [contaminate underground water sources when mined](https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/natural-gas/).
1.2.1.2.1. Pro: Water sources contaminated with natural gas are [extremely toxic and can kill humans](https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/natural-gas-toxic-water).
1.2.1.3. Con: The Environmental Defense Fund has published detailed [recommendations](https://www.edf.org/climate/methanemaps/how-to-fix-problem) to combat problems caused by gas leaks.
1.2.2. Pro: In addition to being able to utilise existing infrastructure, biogas is [easier to store and has a more stable production supply](http://www.suscon.org/pdfs/news/biomethane_report/Chapter_4.pdf). \(p. 77\)
1.2.2.1. Con: Storing biogas in medium and high-pressure storage systems is costly. \([p. 71](http://www.suscon.org/pdfs/news/biomethane_report/Chapter_4.pdf)\)
1.2.2.2. Con: Biogas can cause possible corrosion in the systems that it is stored in. \([p. 72](http://www.suscon.org/pdfs/news/biomethane_report/Chapter_4.pdf)\)
1.2.2.3. Pro: This can help stabilize the distribution grid to better match the supply of power to its demand, as surplus solar and wind can aid in the [production of biogas](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0196890419304376).
1.2.2.3.1. Pro: Biogas can act as a [form of grid energy storage](https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/can-methane-act-as-a-storage-medium-for-renewable-energy).
1.2.2.4. Pro: Biogas production can be [increased and controlled](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160317095120.htm) through alteration of frequencies at its reactors.
1.2.3. Con: Bio-gas can be [less efficient](https://www.biooekonomie-bw.de/en/articles/news/how-efficient-and-climate-friendly-is-biogas-production/) as it requires more land and water in its processing.
1.2.3.1. Con: Public utilities can incorporate biogas along with [other renewable energy sources](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271932614_Design_and_simulation_of_a_solar-wind-biogas_hybrid_system_architecture_using_HOMER_in_India) such as wind and solar to obtain sufficient quantities of required power.
1.2.3.2. Pro: Biogas can be a good addition to the existing solutions, but is not yet a viable [standalone source](https://sswm.info/factsheet/direct-use-of-biogas).
1.2.3.2.1. Con: A study in Brazil concluded that there was enough volume of biogas to [replace natural gas usage.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10098-019-01710-3)
1.2.4. Pro: Biogas can be [produced from organic waste](https://theconversation.com/home-biogas-turning-food-waste-into-renewable-energy-89920) which is available in [large quantities](https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/organic-waste).
1.2.4.1. Con: Biogas cannot work in certain environments.
1.2.4.1.1. Pro: [Biogas](http://homebiogas.com) is less suitable for dense metropolitan areas.
1.2.4.1.2. Pro: [Biogas](https://homebiogas.com/blog/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-biogas/) is produced in large digesters, which have a temperature of 37 degrees Celsius. In colder climates, digesters may need additional energy to be heated.
1.2.4.1.3. Con: Biogas has been [successfully utilized](https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/07/23/biogas-china-solution-for-energy-health-environment) in developing countries such as China, improving both people's livelihoods and the environment around them.
1.2.4.2. Pro: Due to its [efficiency](https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-biogasconverting-waste-to-energy)(Stored biogas can provide a clean, renewable, and reliable source of baseload power in place of coal or natural gas. \n\nSimilar to natural gas, biogas can also be used as a source of peak power that can be rapidly ramped up. Using stored biogas limits the amount of methane released into the atmosphere and reduces dependence on fossil fuels. \n\nBased on a waste-to-wheels assessment, compressed natural gas derived from biogas reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 91 percent relative to petroleum gasoline.), biogas is a useful alternative to the current reliance of primary grid on fossil fuels.
1.2.4.3. Con: [Biogas](https://homebiogas.com/blog/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-biogas/) contains impurities which can cause corrosion.
1.2.4.3.1. Con: Biogas is [processed and cleaned](https://www.powermag.com/biogas-an-alternative-energy-source/)(Cleaning to remove impurities and moisture is necessary before biogas can be used as an energy source for certain alternatives, such as compressed natural gas. This purification is known as “upgrading” the biogas. Rendering biogas to be at least 98% methane produces a product known as “biomethane.” Biomethane performs identically to conventional fossil fuel natural gas, with all the same benefits and uses, and is one of the cleanest and most efficient alternative energy sources.) to remove impurities before being used as an energy.
1.2.4.4. Pro: -> See 1.2.3.2.1.
1.2.5. Pro: Burning biogas [produces carbon dioxide \(CO2\)](https://biogas.ifas.ufl.edu/faq.asp), which is [less of a pollutant](https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-crucial-opportunity-climate-fight) than the organic waste decomposition in landfills which [produces methane \(CH4\)](https://www.learnz.org.nz/redvale181/bg-standard-f/organic-waste-and-landfill-gases).
1.2.5.1. Pro: Methane has [80 times the warming power of CO2](https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-crucial-opportunity-climate-fight) for the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere.
1.2.5.1.1. Con: Carbon dioxide takes [much longer](https://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/methane-vs-carbon-dioxide-a-greenhouse-gas-showdown/) than methane to leave the atmosphere, which means that the world would not be able to experience the rapid cooling that it desperately needs now.
1.2.5.1.2. Pro: Since 1750, or the start of the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of methane in the atmosphere has [increased by 150%.](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/methane)
1.2.5.2. Con: Carbon dioxide accounts for the [majority of all emissions](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data), and its continuously rising levels have extremely negative effects on [human health](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0323-1).
1.3. Pro: The process of [change](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/07/renewables-beat-coal-in-the-u-s-for-the-first-time-this-april?fbclid=IwAR0J8nUa9HqObVDTjZfgrE3MewAvnmIjJVf8uhIGQytoaaSo0Rf_FERX0tQ) has started.
1.3.1. Pro: Europe has methods through which they [are able](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/08/europe-giant-wind-farm-could-power-entire-world?fbclid=IwAR0ElgquVeV6nvtqSwMYNFQv3jhzEEkzROJ5KxhEQQdseYHdQWbXD681z7w) to use renewable energy to sustain base load demands.
1.3.1.1. Pro: There has been successful examples of surplus energy storage and quick boost capabilities.
1.3.1.1.1. Pro: [Dinorwig Power Station](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station) uses surplus energy to create storage that can be used to quickly boost the grid.
1.3.1.2. Pro: It has been noted by the European association of energy producers that there are unlikely to be [energy supply interruptions](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2020/07/23/european-renewables-just-crushed-fossil-fuels-heres-how-it-happened/?sh=18da375515df) from renewables in the future.
1.3.1.3. Con: European countries are still not so good with the [flexibility of balancing](https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2020/07/23/european-renewables-just-crushed-fossil-fuels-heres-how-it-happened/?sh=18da375515df)(One of the major challenges is that of flexibility—most particularly when renewables are generating too much electricity at times of low demand. This creates negative energy prices, which are costly for operators engaged in trying to find ways to balance their grids. “Flexibilities are complicated to address,” Jones said. “You need more storage, to change market design, make power plants more flexible, and bring in incentives for customers to shape their demand. Perhaps the most underused flexibility in Europe is to find a way to simply turn off wind and solar when it’s not needed.”) the surplus of energy generated in a time of low demand.
1.3.2. Pro: In the [UK](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-renewables-generate-more-electricity-than-fossil-fuels-for-first-time) and the [US](https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=43895), renewable sources have started contributing more energy than coal.
1.3.2.1. Pro: In the third quarter of 2019, [40% of electricity generation](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uk-renewables-generate-more-electricity-than-fossil-fuels-for-first-time) in the UK was from renewable energy sources.
1.3.2.2. Con: In the [UK](https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenrwald/2020/11/05/a-warning-from-the-united-kingdom-renewable-energy-may-not-suffice/), greater reliance on renewable energy has increased the risk of power blackouts.
1.3.3. Con: There are significant barriers for countries to start the transition to renewable sources.
1.3.3.1. Pro: Developing countries have an increasing demand in energy use, yet despite the potential, most [do not use](https://globaledge.msu.edu/blog/post/55554/sources-of-energy-in-developing-countrie)(Very few developing countries use renewable or nuclear energy. Some developing countries like Pakistan do use nuclear energy but it is by and large very rare in developing countries. Developing countries make up most of the predicted growth in energy consumption and within that category Asian developing countries are by far the most significant increase in growth. Indonesia. Malaysia, and Vietnam are highlighted by the International Energy Agency as expanding their use of coal. In 2015 coal supplied 36% of Vietnam’s electricity, but the US Energy Administration \(USEA\) predicts coal to provide 56% of Vietnam’s electricity by 2030.) renewable electrical sources.
1.3.3.1.1. Pro: Coal is the most [cost efficient](https://www.energytoday.net/economics-policy/barriers-renewable-energy-technologies-development/)(According to International Energy Agency \(2017\), coal contributes one-third of global energy supply, making up about 40% of electricity generation; as well as playing a very significant industrial role. This means that it will be hard to replace coal as a source of energy, especially in our industries. The kind of infrastructural changes that are required in changing from coal to other renewable sources of energy is prohibitive—in terms of cost and time.\n\nAlso, industries require a lot of energy. Coal has a high net energy yield compared to other sources of energy \(9\). This means that for a unit of coal a lot of energy is produced compared to other sources of energy. Therefore, coal is very efficient for producing the high amounts of energy required in the industries, which makes it very hard to replace it with other energy sources.) energy source to use, making it the best option for developing countries wishing to catch up to industrialized countries.
1.3.3.1.1.1. Pro: There has been research done to use fossil fuels in a [cleaner, more sustainable way](https://news.stanford.edu/2017/10/05/future-energy-fossil-fuels/).
1.3.3.1.2. Pro: [Regulatory and political barriers](https://www.energytoday.net/economics-policy/barriers-renewable-energy-technologies-development/) deter the development of these renewable energy technologies.
1.3.3.1.3. Pro: Many places lack the [technological expertise and facilities](https://www.energytoday.net/economics-policy/barriers-renewable-energy-technologies-development/)(This is particularly true in cases where core renewable energy technologies are not provided in many places or are not sustained well in some areas where present in the developing countries, especially Sub-Saharan Africa. Because of lack of trained personnel to train, demonstrate, maintain and operate renewable energy structures, especially in regions with low education levels, people are unwilling to import the technologies for fear of failure.) to create renewable energy technologies.
1.3.3.1.4. Con: Developing countries have been leading the way in using [renewables](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/sep/15/five-developing-countries-ditching-fossil-fuels-china-india-costa-rica-afghanistan-albania).
1.3.3.1.4.1. Pro: Nicaragua generates [over 50%](https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/jane-marsh/the-renewables-revolution-in-developing-countries-20210521)(Nicaragua generated 54% of its total energy use from renewable sources before June of 2015. It plans to continue clean energy development, creating 90% of its energy from nondepletable sources in the future. The country utilizes geothermal, wind and solar power to meet local demands.\n\nRenewable energy installation significantly shrank Nicaragua's carbon footprint and lowered electricity costs. Onshore wind and solar power recently fell below 5 cents per kilowatt-hour. Fossil fuel-generated power reaches up to 18 cents per kilowatt-hour.\n\nThe 13-cent reduction in price makes renewable energy the most affordable power source on the market. Developing countries can save significant funds by adopting clean energy. It will continuously drop over time, making it more affordable and accessible for all.) of its energy from renewable sources.
1.3.3.1.4.2. Pro: China has been leading the world to becoming a ["renewables superpower"](https://www.oecd.org/fr/dev/developing-countries-and-the-renewable-energy-revolution.htm) to increase its industrial development.
1.3.3.1.4.3. Con: [Developing countries such as China and India](https://blog.resourcewatch.org/2019/05/02/which-countries-use-the-most-fossil-fuels/) contribute heavily to fossil fuel consumption.
1.3.3.2. Con: Increasingly, there are initiatives that make it easier for countries to make the switch to renewable energy sources.
1.3.3.2.1. Pro: The European Commission helped mobilize roughly [$50 billion](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2021/03/16/can-emerging-countries-afford-to-make-the-clean-energy-transition/) in sustainable investment for Africa.
1.3.3.2.2. Pro: There are [green power partnership programs](https://www.epa.gov/greenpower/green-power-partnership-related-programs-organizations) that help countries develop sustainable energy strategies and technologies.
1.3.3.2.2.1. Pro: The Australian government has been consistently updating a published report of [Large-scale Renewable Energy Target](http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/RET/About-the-Renewable-Energy-Target/Large-scale-Renewable-Energy-Target-market-data) in order to encourage electricity generation from renewable sources.
1.3.3.2.3. Con: Only providing economic stimuli to help develop green technology will not yield significant change without being accompanied by [government policies](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-09-17/money-alone-won-t-allow-green-energy-to-oust-fossil-fuels).
1.3.3.2.3.1. Con: Economic stimuli can help incentivize governments to implement change.
1.3.3.2.4. Con: Tax incentives that promote renewables should not be further utilized as they are an [inefficient form of investment.](https://www.americaspower.org/its-time-to-end-subsidies-for-renewable-energy/)
1.3.3.3. Con: Without the [support](https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2021/03/16/can-emerging-countries-afford-to-make-the-clean-energy-transition/?sh=48cd0c3a383a) of richer countries, it would be difficult for poorer countries to meet carbon neutrality goals.
1.3.3.4. Pro: The [unequal playing field created by the fossil fuel industry](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/barriers-renewable-energy-technologies) is difficult to bypass.
1.3.3.4.1. Pro: The growth of renewable energy is hindered by the vast amounts of subsidies available for fossil fuel industries.
1.3.3.4.1.1. Pro: In the United States, about [$20.5 billion is spent on subsidies for fossil fuels every year](http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/).
1.3.3.4.1.2. Con: Many governments are now committing to phase out fossil fuel subsidies for being [inefficient](http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/).
1.3.3.4.1.3. Con: On the contrary, renewable energy sources are often criticized for being heavily subsidized. \([p. 12](https://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/sites/cif_enc/files/meeting-documents/srep_inf_3_subsidy_paper_0.pdf)\)
1.3.3.4.1.4. Pro: Since the price of power generated by fossil fuels [does not reflect environmental costs](https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/some-key-issues-for-reviews-of-the-costs-of-low-carbon-electricity-generation-in-the-uk/), it provides [implicit subsidies](https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/comment-on-increasing-household-energy-bills/) to fossil fuel industries.
1.3.3.4.2. Pro: Fossil fuel companies are [politically powerful](https://www.brookings.edu/essay/why-are-fossil-fuels-so-hard-to-quit/) and thus receive [preferential treatment](https://www.alter-eu.org/fossil-free-politics-end-preferential-treatment-of-the-fossil-fuel-industry).
1.3.3.4.2.1. Pro: In the US, oil and gas developers receive [tax breaks](https://newrepublic.com/article/162842/tax-breaks-fossil-fuel-companies-inflated-profits-oil-gas-drilling) that allow them to increase their valuation by $2 billion USD.
1.3.3.4.2.2. Con: US President Joe Biden has proposed that preferential treatment be [taken away](https://www.vox.com/22363539/oil-gas-subsidies-biden-solar-wind-tax-reform-infrastructure-bill) from fossil fuel corporations to better support climate initiatives.
1.3.3.4.3. Con: Efforts such as the introduction of [emission fees or caps on total pollution](https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/reduce-emissions/cap-trade-carbon-tax#.Wfi2g2hSyCo) are helping to remove this unequal playing field.
1.3.3.4.4. Con: The misinformation spread by fossil fuel industries, which helps consolidate the unequal playing field, is being actively [tackled](https://www.ucsusa.org/climate/disinformation).
1.3.3.4.4.1. Pro: [ExxonMobil](https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/) was sued for [potentially misleading its shareholders over the true cost of climate change](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/10/exxon-did-not-mislead-investors-a-new-york-judge-ruled-on-tuesday.html).
1.3.4. Con: Claims of utilizing renewable energy can be [misleading.](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56602674)
1.3.4.1. Pro: Energy companies buy [unregulated certificates](https://www.edie.net/news/10/Which--accused-of-defamation-over--misleading--renewable-guarantees-claims/) that claim their energy is renewable; these certificates don't actually mean anything as the companies can still source their electricity from anywhere.
1.3.4.2. Con: It has become increasingly popular to make [false claims](https://apnews.com/article/false-claims-texas-blackout-wind-turbine-f9e24976e9723021bec21f9a68afe927) about the ineffectiveness of renewable energy while fossil fuels are the ones actually causing issues.
1.4. Con: Renewable energy sources have negative environmental impacts.
1.4.1. Pro: The components used in the batteries of electric cars are [pollutants](https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/aug/24/nickel-mining-hidden-environmental-cost-electric-cars-batteries).
1.4.1.1. Con: Companies are being coerced into shifting to safer chemical components through activism and legislation and this has [worked](https://www.altenergymag.com/article/2018/05/these-major-tech-companies-are-making-the-shift-to-renewable-energy-can-you-afford-to-ignore-the-trend/28595) in the past.
1.4.1.2. Pro: The mining of [cobalt](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-sight/wp/2018/02/28/the-cost-of-cobalt/)(Scientists have recorded alarming radioactivity levels in some mining regions. Mining waste often pollutes rivers and drinking water. The dust from the pulverized rock is known to cause breathing problems. The mining industry’s toxic fallout is only now being studied by researchers, mostly in Lubumbashi, the country’s mining capital.), a mineral used in these batteries, has noted environmental health risks.
1.4.1.2.1. Pro: High doses of cobalt exposure can lead to [lung disease and heart failure.](https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2019/dec/18/how-the-race-for-cobalt-risks-turning-it-from-miracle-metal-to-deadly-chemical)
1.4.1.2.2. Pro: Cobalt mines can [devastate the water supply of a region](https://unctad.org/news/developing-countries-pay-environmental-cost-electric-car-batteries).
1.4.1.2.3. Con: Research into [cobalt-free batteries](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200716101612.htm) is reducing the environmental health risks posed.
1.4.1.3. Pro: Batteries rely on materials like [lithium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery), which is harmful to the environment.
1.4.1.3.1. Con: Battery manufacturers are [now considering alternatives to lithium](https://www.power-technology.com/features/lithium-battery-alternatives/) due to its environmental impact.
1.4.1.3.1.1. Pro: Hydrogen fuel cells are [carbon-neutral source of power](https://www.power-technology.com/features/lithium-battery-alternatives/) compared to conventional lithium batteries.
1.4.1.3.1.1.1. Con: Hydrogen is [highly flammable and can react explosively](https://www.power-technology.com/features/lithium-battery-alternatives/) if the temperature of the fuel cell is not handled correctly.
1.4.1.3.2. Pro: Lithium extraction causes [air contamination](https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-environmental-impact-of-lithium-batteries/).
1.4.1.3.3. Pro: Lithium extraction can cause [toxic waste](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact)(There’s also the potential – as occurred in Tibet – for toxic chemicals to leak from the evaporation pools into the water supply. These include chemicals, including hydrochloric acid, which are used in the processing of lithium into a form that can be sold, as well as those waste products that are filtered out of the brine at each stage. In Australia and North America, lithium is mined from rock using more traditional methods, but still requires the use of chemicals in order to extract it in a useful form. Research in Nevada found impacts on fish as far as 150 miles downstream from a lithium processing operation.) to leak into the water supply.
1.4.1.3.3.1. Pro: Toxic waste from lithium may cause [considerable damage to the aquatic environment](https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12302-020-00333-6).
1.4.2. Con: Renewable energy has contributed [little to no emissions](https://www.intechopen.com/books/wind-solar-hybrid-renewable-energy-system/social-economic-and-environmental-impacts-of-renewable-energy-resources) that can pollute the air, compared to traditional power sources.
1.4.2.1. Pro: Electric cars, which run on renewables, don't have tailpipes that emit carbon dioxide which contribute to [air pollution](https://www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/reducing-pollution-electric-vehicles) in the environment.
1.4.2.1.1. Pro: As a [greenhouse gas](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/greenhouse-gases), carbon dioxide can trap heat on the Earth's surface when released into the atmosphere. The increasing release of CO2 into the atmosphere drastically changes climate systems.
1.4.2.2. Con: The manufacturing of renewable energy can [increase](https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/4/27/17283830/batteries-energy-storage-carbon-emissions) carbon emissions.
1.4.3. Con: Renewable energy sources are better for the world's supply of water.
1.4.3.1. Pro: Compared to nuclear and fossil fuels, water and solar energy use the [least amount](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/renewable-energy-saves-water-and-creates-jobs/)(Nuclear reactors are the highest, at 13,000 gallons. Then comes concentrated solar \(heating a fluid with the sun\), coal, natural gas and biomass such as wood. The water needed by solar panels and wind turbines is orders of magnitude lower. Note that these data only reflect operations to generate electricity; they do not include water used to obtain the fuel or generate the power, which can be substantial. For example, fracking can use hundreds of thousands of gallons each time a rock deposit is cracked to release natural gas) of water to generate electricity.
1.4.3.1.1. Con: [Concentrated solar power \(CSP\) plants](https://www.seia.org/initiatives/concentrating-solar-power) use a lot of water, which is a problem since they [tend to be located in places](https://blogs.worldbank.org/water/cutting-water-consumption-concentrated-solar-power-plants-0) where water is scarce.
1.4.3.1.1.1. Pro: Compared to 2,000 liters/MWh for new coal-fired power plants, CSP plants need to withdraw as much as [3,500 liters/MWh](https://blogs.worldbank.org/water/cutting-water-consumption-concentrated-solar-power-plants-0) of water to generate energy.
1.4.3.1.1.2. Pro: Due to the high [irradiance](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/irradiance), the preferred locations to install CSP plants are [arid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arid), where water is a scarce resource. \([p. 1](https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5117762)\)
1.4.3.1.1.3. Con: [CSP-PV hybrid plants](https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijp/2018/8380276/) are being developed to address this issue of water scarcity. \([p. 3](https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5117762)\)
1.4.3.1.1.3.1. Pro: The testing of CSP-PV hybrid plants indicate that they have the potential to reduce the total water consumption by 43%. \([p. 3](https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5117762)\)
1.4.3.2. Pro: Renewables do not pollute [water sources](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/benefits-renewable-energy-use) as they don't compete with other water needs.
1.4.3.2.1. Pro: Mining for fossil fuels can create waste and [pollute water sources](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-it-works-water-electricity)(Minerals unearthed during fuel mining and drilling can contaminate groundwater, which in turn affects drinking water and local ecosystems. Known as “acid rock drainage,” the pollution can change the pH of nearby streams to the same level as vinegar.\n\nCoal mining and combustion create wastes with dangerous toxins such as mercury, lead, and arsenic. Improper storage or disposal of these wastes can contaminate water supplies. Coal combustion can also create acid rain, increasing the acidity of lakes and streams and harming aquatic ecosystems.).
1.4.3.2.2. Con: Even though renewable energy sources do not pollute water, they can cause [water scarcity](https://www.unwater.org/water-facts/scarcity/) in areas where they are located.
1.4.3.2.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.4.3.1.1.
1.4.3.3. Con: [Hydropower](https://www.energy.gov/eere/water/how-hydropower-works), a renewable energy source, can negatively impact the flow of water and lead to [floods](https://www.altenergymag.com/article/2015/08/the-dark-side-of-renewable-energy-negative-impacts-of-renewables-on-the-environment/20963/).
1.4.3.4. Con: Some renewable energy technologies consume significant quantities of water. \([p. 89](https://www.nap.edu/read/12987/chapter/6)\)
1.4.4. Con: Climate change stands to cause substantial ecological damage to the world, and we should try to diminish its effects.
1.4.4.1. Pro: If it is agreed that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is key for the future of this planet and health of its inhabitants, solar/wind should replace coal/gas.
1.4.4.1.1. Pro: Based on life cycle assessment, [solar/wind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources) emit less than 50 g carbon dioxide per kWh of energy generated compared to at least 500 g carbon dioxide per kWh from coal/gas.
1.4.4.1.2. Pro: Burning fossil fuels creates [carbon dioxide](https://developmenteducation.ie/feature/the-energy-debate-renewable-energy-cannot-replace-fossil-fuels/), the main greenhouse gas emitter that contributes to global warming.
1.4.4.2. Pro: [NASA](https://developmenteducation.ie/feature/the-energy-debate-renewable-energy-cannot-replace-fossil-fuels/) predicts that Earth will warm up by between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century.
1.4.4.2.1. Pro: Many more [devastating natural disasters](https://www.nrdc.org/stories/are-effects-global-warming-really-bad)(Higher temperatures are worsening many types of disasters, including storms, heat waves, floods, and droughts. A warmer climate creates an atmosphere that can collect, retain, and drop more water, changing weather patterns in such a way that wet areas become wetter and dry areas drier. "Extreme weather events are costing more and more," says Aliya Haq, deputy director of NRDC's Clean Power Plan initiative. "The number of billion-dollar weather disasters is expected to rise.") will happen as a result of the planet warming up by a few degrees.
1.4.4.2.2. Pro: Major action to reduce emissions can [help us avoid or limit](https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/16/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/) some of the worst effects of climate change in the next century.
1.4.4.3. Pro: At present, [climate change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report) and global warming are primarily driven by [anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions](https://www.epa.gov/report-environment/greenhouse-gases).
1.4.4.3.1. Con: A reduction in greenhouse gases would not be able to stop global warming, as the Earth is past the ["point of no return."](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/11/12/reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-stop-climate-change-study/3761882001/)
1.4.4.3.2. Pro: Global warming could only be caused by human activity and not by the [Sun](https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/); temperatures have risen only in the lower parts of the atmosphere, yet the upper parts of the atmosphere have remained cool.
1.4.4.4. Con: Increasing [photovoltaic cell production](http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Solar-Cell.html) on a scale significant enough to accommodate the current plans for many utilities may have massive [environmental consequences](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/141111-solar-panel-manufacturing-sustainability-ranking) for less developed countries.
1.4.4.4.1. Pro: Many developing countries already have [poor environmental qualities](https://epic.uchicago.edu/news/why-environmental-quality-is-poor-in-developing-countries-a-primer/), and it does not need to be exacerbated by further harm.
1.4.4.4.1.1. Con: In 2008, Ecuador was one of the first countries in the world to add [Rights to Nature](https://psmag.com/environment/the-key-to-climate-change-is-getting-countries-to-follow-the-law)(The South American nation was one of the first countries in the world to add the Rights of Nature to its constitution in 2008, which ensure the protection of natural environments and reparations if it is affected by extraction projects.\n\nThe same constitution also includes special rights for indigenous and Afro-Ecuadorian populations, and ensures their rights to free prior and informed consultation for any extraction projects planned on or near their territory that might affect their livelihood.) to its Constitution.
1.4.4.4.1.2. Pro: The future of population growth will be in urban areas of less developed countries, where [poor planning](https://www.who.int/heli/risks/ehindevcoun/en/index1.html) can lead to significant environmental hazards.
1.4.4.4.2. Con: Solar power to rural, underdeveloped parts of the world could [vastly improve](https://www.scidev.net/global/features/solar-power-for-the-poor-facts-and-figures-1/) the lives of the people living there.
1.4.4.4.2.1. Pro: Solar power can help [reduce health risks](https://www.scidev.net/global/features/solar-power-for-the-poor-facts-and-figures-1/) caused by burning kerosene lamps and candles in villages.
1.4.4.4.2.2. Con: It is unlikely that proper maintenance of solar power systems can be sustained in rural areas. \([p. 81](https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOREJ/TOREJ-2-79.pdf)\)
1.4.4.4.2.3. Pro: The use of solar energy in rural areas would be [more cost-efficient](https://borgenproject.org/solar-power-in-rural-areas/) than connecting houses to the electric grid.
1.4.4.4.2.4. Con: Implementing solar power on a [small scale](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-solar-scale/rural-india-needs-solar-power-for-more-than-just-lighting-study-finds-idUSKBN18R21U), for a couple of hours a day, is not enough to improve people's lives.
1.4.5. Pro: Dramatically increasing the amount of wind turbines could have [detrimental effects](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/sep/27/wind-power-wildlife-lucy-siegle) on wildlife.
1.4.5.1. Con: On the contrary, this reduces the death of birds and bats.
1.4.5.1.1. Pro: A [study by the National Wind Coordinating Committee \(NWCC\)](https://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/birds_and_bats_fact_sheet.pdf) concluded that wind turbines considerably reduce collision to bats and migrating songbirds. \(p. 4\)
1.4.5.2. Pro: Solar power facilities require a big area of land; building such facilities can [disrupt habitats](https://www.altenergymag.com/article/2015/08/the-dark-side-of-renewable-energy-negative-impacts-of-renewables-on-the-environment/20963/).
1.4.5.2.1. Pro: A solar power plant that provides electricity for 1,000 homes requires [32 acres of land](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130806145537.htm).
1.4.5.3. Pro: [Wind farms](https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants) require up to 360 times as much land to produce the same amount of electricity. This comes at the expense of animals' natural habitats.
1.4.5.3.1. Pro: It would take hundreds of wind turbines such as [Vestas V164](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestas_V164) to match the [output of a typical coal plant](https://www.mcginley.co.uk/news/how-much-of-each-energy-source-does-it-take-to-power-your-home/bp254/).
1.4.5.3.2. Con: The [massive risks of overall damage](https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/) to the world's ecosystem caused by climate change may outweigh the smaller scale destruction of natural habitats needed to make space for wind turbines.
1.4.5.3.2.1. Pro: Wind turbines produce no carbon emissions, causing habitat damage to be limited to just the land that they use.
1.5. Con: The economic costs of shifting to renewable energy sources are high.
1.5.1. Pro: It is much more expensive to have many small sources of intermittent power, compared to having just a few established ones.
1.5.1.1. Con: All systems lack efficiency when introduced, and develop as they are used more. The inevitable benefits of renewable resources are enough of a motive for further investment.
1.5.1.2. Con: On the contrary, [decentralised power generation systems](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_generation) have proven to be more resilient.
1.5.1.3. Pro: Since the sun and wind provide only intermittent energy, renewable energy continues to require fossil fuel backups. Hence it is difficult to get reliable power from either as they are both [weather dependent](https://developmenteducation.ie/feature/the-energy-debate-renewable-energy-cannot-replace-fossil-fuels/).
1.5.1.3.1. Con: [Tidal power](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power), which is constant, should attract more research.
1.5.1.3.2. Pro: Due to the ongoing drought, reserves are so low in a [Californian hydroelectric plant](https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/559109-california-hydroelectric-plan-expected-to-shut-down-for-the-first) that it is expected to shut down.
1.5.2. Pro: Energy storage to cover for peak demand is inefficient and costly.
1.5.2.1. Pro: The battery storage capabilities can only last [10-16.8 hours](https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2019/11/04/1940219/0/en/Can-You-Survive-on-Just-Solar-and-Batteries-during-a-Prolonged-Grid-Outage.html), and are not reliable enough for what the economy currently demands for in its base load power.
1.5.2.1.1. Con: Ramping up main grid power generation [may not be as problematic](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/we-dont-need-huge-breakthrough-make-renewable-energy-viable-it-already-180952254/) as is conventionally thought in terms of storage required.
1.5.2.2. Pro: While solar and wind may help increase the share of energy production made by renewable resources, they will need [more energy storage capacity](https://www.businessinsider.com/renewable-energy-storage-problem-2013-11) than is currently available.
1.5.2.3. Con: Energy storage technologies are [improving in efficiency](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484720312464).
1.5.2.3.1. Pro: [Electrical Energy Storage \(EES\)](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352152X17300178) can store electrical energy in various devices and materials and provide it in [times of high demand](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484720312464).
1.5.3. Con: When considering cost of electricity by source, even without factoring in a potential carbon tax; solar and wind energies are [lower in cost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source).
1.5.3.1. Pro: Investing in this technology from the ground up will only [lower](https://www.businessinsider.com/renewable-energy-will-be-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-by-2020-2018-1) its future costs.
1.5.3.1.1. Pro: The [energy profit ratio](http://parisinnovationreview.com/articles-en/will-renewable-energy-sources-soon-be-profitable) \(EPR\) of most renewable power technologies should continue to incentive innovation and broad mix of energy supply around the world.
1.5.3.2. Con: Solar and wind energy may be getting cheaper but they are still [more expensive](https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2014/01/05/why-is-renewable-energy-so-expensive) when compared to fossil fuels.
1.5.3.2.1. Con: These costs may only be more expensive in the short term when not factoring in detrimental external costs.
1.5.3.3. Pro: The operational cost of utility scale solar and wind is very stable and does not rely on importing resources like coal and gas.
1.5.3.3.1. Pro: Tesla's [giant battery project](https://electrek.co/2018/01/23/tesla-giant-battery-australia-1-million/) in Australia has proved that utility scale battery storage is effective, possible and profitable.
1.5.3.3.1.1. Con: -> See 1.4.1.
1.5.3.4. Pro: Even without any breakthroughs in technology, solar energy is projected to [decrease in cost](https://www.businessinsider.com/solar-power-cost-decrease-2018-5) as mass production increases.
1.5.3.4.1. Pro: Solar and wind are now the [cheapest form](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCeC4a_p1-Y) of electricity in the history of the global energy markets. The average power auction price is [2.6 cents/kWh](https://www.novoco.com/sites/default/files/atoms/files/windcost_01_0.pdf) without subsidies. \(p. 2\)
1.5.4. Pro: Renewables are mainly developed by companies focused on [making a profit](https://www.ft.com/content/d94c35ac-aef9-11e9-b3e2-4fdf846f48f5) rather than saving the environment.
1.5.4.1. Pro: Tesla CEO Elon Musk told his employees to focus on [profits and cost-saving](https://electrek.co/2020/12/01/elon-musk-tesla-focus-profits-tsla-email/) in order to please investors.
1.5.4.2. Con: The EU has published a [report](https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/energy/renewable-energy/eu-renewable-electricity-has-reduced) for policymakers and individuals to consider and minimize the environmental impact of renewables.
1.5.4.3. Con: Apple CEO Tim Cook has [defended](https://www.techradar.com/news/computing/apple/tim-cook-gets-grumpy-as-greedy-stockholders-question-green-tech-policies-1230005) the company's insistence on environmentally friendly projects, even when it displeased shareholders who didn't believe in using green energy.
1.5.5. Pro: Closing down coal mines and power plants will lead to a [loss of jobs](https://energynews.us/2020/06/25/thousands-of-coal-workers-lost-jobs-where-will-they-go/).
1.5.5.1. Pro: The [economic despair](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/20/unemployment-men-lose-job-self-esteem)(In September 2020 255 oil rigs were operating in the US, down from 868 in September last year, which in turn was down from the 2011 high of 2,026 operating rigs. While the financial fallout alone is stark, such numbers also point to a looming mental health crisis among the industry’s men who kill themselves at a higher rate than workers in any other sector. Researchers have drawn a direct line between the collapse of oil, unemployment and epidemic despair.) caused by job loss has led to a higher rate of suicide in men who work in these industries.
1.5.5.2. Pro: A loss of jobs in traditionally mining towns can have a long-term negative effect on the [economy](https://www.knoxnews.com/story/money/business/2018/02/04/study-coal-job-losses-appalachia-impact-study-tennessee-west-virginia/1083544001/) of the region.
1.5.5.2.1. Pro: The revenue collected by tax revenue authorities decline once locals in the region lose their jobs.
1.5.5.3. Con: Since we already deal with [massive job loss through automation](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/10/27/us-lost-over-60-million-jobs-now-robots-tech-and-artificial-intelligence-will-take-millions-more/), it seems counter-intuitive to stop when the issue concerns energy production, the base of our modern lives.
1.5.5.3.1. Con: Automation can actually lead to [more jobs](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/02/world-economic-forum-automation-create-jobs-employment-robots/), as skilled workers are needed to work within the automation sector.
1.5.5.3.2. Pro: Automation has made some jobs [harder](https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/27/21155254/automation-robots-unemployment-jobs-vs-human-google-amazon) as robots become the ones that manage human productivity and efficiency.
1.5.5.4. Con: If jobs created by wind power, solar energy and storage are as much as [forecasted](https://articles.aplus.com/a/will-renewable-energy-create-jobs), there will be a [net positive of jobs created](https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikescott/2018/05/08/clean-energy-sector-employs-more-than-10-million-for-the-first-time/#28e8036fb500) in the energy sector.
1.5.5.4.1. Pro: There is a [rapid growth](https://www.edf.org/energy/clean-energy-jobs) in the renewable energy industry; from 2016-2017, jobs in solar sectors rose by 24.5%, while jobs in wind rose by 16%.
1.5.5.4.2. Pro: Blue collar workers are able to acquire high-paying jobs by making the [transition](https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2019/04/22/renewable-energy-job-boom-creating-economic-opportunity-as-coal-industry-slumps/?sh=622dad6a3665)(Fortunately, the coal-to-clean transition is creating opportunities to replace lost jobs and cut consumer costs while expanding the tax base in coal-dependent communities – if policymakers embrace the “coal cost crossover.”) from coal to clean energy jobs.
1.5.5.4.3. Con: It might be likely that this net positive is not achieved due to [massive layoffs in the non-renewable energy sector](https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/31/bidens-climate-change-plan-and-americas-most-threatened-workers.html).
1.5.6. Con: The coal plants are already built and working well, thus no further investment in alternative energy sources is necessary.
1.5.6.1. Con: Investment in new technology benefits the economy by [producing new jobs](https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/articles/technology-s-impact-on-growth-and-employment/).
1.5.6.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.5.5.4.
1.5.6.2. Con: If we do not switch to alternative energy sources, we will suffer [social consequences](https://www.intechopen.com/books/wind-solar-hybrid-renewable-energy-system/social-economic-and-environmental-impacts-of-renewable-energy-resources) that affect the quality of our life.
1.5.6.3. Con: Investment in [carbon capture and sequestration \(CCS\)](https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/carbon-dioxide-capture-and-sequestration-overview_.html) or "clean coal" [can help capture carbon emissions](https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/news/a27886/how-does-clean-coal-work/).
1.5.6.3.1. Pro: In Pennsylvania, USA, there has been [continued development](https://www.energy.gov/articles/clean-coal-crucial-american-jobs-energy-security-and-national-supply-chains) in coal plants that reduce emissions.
1.5.6.3.2. Con: "[Clean coal](https://www.businessinsider.com/clean-coal-will-jack-up-electric-bills-2009-7)" is really just much more expensive coal that's slightly less harmful.
1.5.6.4. Pro: Coal power plants are becoming [increasingly efficient](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/1359431196000014).
1.5.6.4.1. Con: Investment in advanced coal technologies, such as [ultrasupercritical or circulating fluidized bed \(CFB\) combustion](https://www.powermag.com/advanced-coal-technologies-improve-emissions-and-efficiency-2/), will further improve efficiency of coal power plants.
1.5.6.4.1.1. Con: The upfront cost of advanced coal technology is [20%−30% more expensive](https://www.power-technology.com/features/featurelean-and-clean-why-modern-coal-fired-power-plants-are-better-by-design-4892873/) than the traditional ones.
1.5.6.4.1.2. Pro: Ultrasupercritical and CFB combustion technologies [play a big role in reducing carbondioxide emissions](https://www.powermag.com/advanced-coal-technologies-improve-emissions-and-efficiency-2/) by generating more power for a given amount of coal.
1.5.6.4.2. Pro: Coal power plants in Yokohama, Japan emit [50% less sulphur, 80% less nitrogen, 70% less particulate and 17% less carbon dioxide](https://www.power-technology.com/features/featurelean-and-clean-why-modern-coal-fired-power-plants-are-better-by-design-4892873/) compared to previous coal units.
1.5.6.4.2.1. Pro: The plant at Isogo, Yokohama is ranked as the [world’s cleanest coal-fired power plant](https://www.powermag.com/top-plantisogo-thermal-power-station-unit-2-yokohama-japan/) in terms of emissions intensity.
1.5.6.4.2.2. Con: Even though these power plants emit less harmful gases, they are only able to achieve a [45% efficiency](https://www.power-technology.com/features/featurelean-and-clean-why-modern-coal-fired-power-plants-are-better-by-design-4892873/) rate. This means that investment in further improving the technology is needed.
1.5.6.5. Pro: Coal is the most stable and reliable source of energy that can provide continuous baseload power. [\(p. 2\)](https://www.nationalcoalcouncil.org/Documents/Energy-Education/4-Coal-Reliable-Energy-Final.pdf)
1.5.7. Con: There are different avenues of financing available to reduce the barrier of making the switch to renewable energy sources.
1.5.7.1. Pro: [Institutional investors](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/i/institutionalinvestor.asp) are increasingly making investments into renewable energy projects. \([p. 7](https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Nov/IRENA_Mobilising_institutional_capital_2020.pdf)\)
1.5.7.1.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.2.1.
1.5.7.1.2. Con: Most institutional assets, and by extension institutional investment, is usually concentrated in developed countries. \([p. 22](https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2020/Nov/IRENA_Mobilising_institutional_capital_2020.pdf)\)
1.5.7.2. Con: These financing avenues are likely to have high interest rates in developing countries. \([p. 1](https://climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Finance-Mechanisms-for-Lowering-the-Cost-of-Clean-Energy-in-Rapidly-Developing-Countries.pdf)\)
1.5.8. Con: Governments can reduce these economic costs through [increased investment in clean energy](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/barriers-renewable-energy-technologies).
1.5.8.1. Pro: Governments can offer financing at lower borrowing costs, since unlike banks, they are not bound by stringent banking regulations. \([p. 3](https://www.oecd.org/cgfi/forum/The-governments-role-in-mobilising-investment-and-innovation-in-renewable-energy-Insights.pdf)\)
1.6. Pro: Fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas are [finite and will run out eventually.](https://ourworldindata.org/how-long-before-we-run-out-of-fossil-fuels)
1.6.1. Con: This is not going to be a problem for [many years](https://group.met.com/fyouture/when-will-fossil-fuels-run-out/68), and the energy market may adapt and correct itself well before this happens.
1.6.1.1. Pro: Investors in energy stocks have been retreating from the oil and gas sector due to [uncertainty](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/13/energy-markets-are-in-transition-why-investors-are-retreating.html) in their future.
1.6.1.2. Con: Even if the fossil fuels don't run out soon, using them still contributes to harmful [carbon dioxide emissions](https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/role-fossil-fuels-sustainable-energy-system)(Fossil fuels comprise 80 per cent of current global primary energy demand, and the energy system is the source of approximately two thirds of global CO2 emissions. Inasmuch as methane and other short-lived climate pollutant \(SLCP\) emissions are believed to be severely underestimated, it is likely that energy production and use are the source of an even greater share of emissions. Further, much of the biomass fuels are currently used around the world in small scale heating and cooking. These are highly inefficient and polluting, especially for indoor air quality in many less-developed countries.).
1.6.2. Pro: The large scale functionality of renewable resources needs to be developed and refined to ensure these systems are in place before fossil fuel sources run out.
1.6.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.2.2.1.
1.6.2.2. Con: There are [many challenges](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257365057_Key_Challenges_in_integrating_large_scale_Renewable_Energy_with_the_Grid_in_Rajasthan) to implement large scale renewable energy for electricity generation. \(pp. 3-6\)
1.6.2.2.1. Pro: It is very [expensive](https://ucsusa.org/resources/barriers-renewable-energy-technologies)(The most obvious and widely publicized barrier to renewable energy is cost—specifically, capital costs, or the upfront expense of building and installing solar and wind farms. Like most renewables, solar and wind are exceedingly cheap to operate—their “fuel” is free, and maintenance is minimal—so the bulk of the expense comes from building the technology.) to construct these systems.
1.6.2.2.2. Pro: It is difficult for renewables to enter and compete with an already [saturated](https://ucsusa.org/resources/barriers-renewable-energy-technologies)(New energy technologies—startups—face even larger barriers. They compete with major market players like coal and gas, and with proven, low-cost solar and wind technologies. To prove their worth, they must demonstrate scale: most investors want large quantities of energy, ideally at times when wind and solar aren’t available. That’s difficult to accomplish, and a major reason why new technologies suffer high rates of failure.) energy market.
1.6.2.2.3. Con: Reforms in policy could solve many of the challenges in [scaling](https://globuswarwick.com/2020/04/30/todd-olive-energy/)(To address obstacles in obtaining land and permissions, reforms to planning regulations could be introduced to fast-track applications for permission to construct renewable energy ‘farms’, or for domestic and industrial schemes that incorporate some extent of REG; a form of compulsory purchase orders, similar to those used to facilitate large-scale infrastructure such as railroads, could be introduced to streamline the process of acquiring suitable generating sites.) the cost of renewable technologies.
1.6.3. Con: Although some have estimated that fossil fuels may run out by 2060, [newer reserves](https://octopus.energy/blog/when-will-fossil-fuels-run-out/) of these sources will probably be discovered before then.
1.6.3.1. Pro: In 2018, [175 billion tons of coal reserves](https://www.engro.com/stories/thar-coal-mining-project-addressing-pakistans-rising-energy-needs/) were discovered in Thar, Pakistan.
1.6.3.2. Con: Even with new sources of fossil fuels discovered, they cannot meet the current or rising [usage demands](https://group.met.com/fyouture/when-will-fossil-fuels-run-out/68)(Formed millions of years ago, yet only used for around 200 years, fossil fuel reserves are emptying very quickly. It is also obvious that the exact date of running out of these fuels remains unknown. It is because we continue to discover new reserves, however, the number of new reserves is low: they cannot meet our population’s needs with the current and expected future levels of usage.).
1.6.3.3. Pro: China has recently discovered a [1 billion ton reserve](https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202106/1226540.shtml) of oil and gas in its autonomous Xinjiang Province.
1.6.3.4. Con: Continuous use of fossil fuels for energy would upset the balance of power between countries, [sowing division](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/05/what-if-we-never-run-out-of-oil/309294/)(Nations dislike depending on international oil, but they play nice and obey the rules because they don’t want to be cut off. By contrast, countries with plenty of energy reserves feel free to throw their weight around. \n\nThe implication is sobering: an energy-independent planet would be a world of fractious, autonomous actors, none beholden to the others, with even less cooperation than exists today.) between nations.
1.6.4. Pro: The demand for fossil fuels, especially in developing countries, is [increasing](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/07/19/global-coal-consumption-is-being-driven-by-developing-countries/?sh=6db2ff4f1c4f) more than ever.
1.6.4.1. Pro: In the Asia-Pacific region, coal consumption has climbed at an average annual rate of [2.4% over the past decade](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2020/07/19/global-coal-consumption-is-being-driven-by-developing-countries/?sh=6db2ff4f1c4f).
1.6.4.2. Con: Some developing countries have started reducing their reliance on fossil fuels for power generation.
1.6.4.2.1. Pro: After signing the Paris Agreement in 2015, [India](https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/india-should-reduce-dependency-on-fossil-fuels-economic-survey/articleshow/56893052.cms) is [shifting away from fossil fuels](https://thebulletin.org/2019/12/good-news-for-climate-change-india-gets-out-of-coal-and-into-renewable-energy/) to produce energy.
1.6.4.2.2. Pro: The top five nations that have the highest percentage of their GDP [invested in renewable energy](https://oxfordbusinessgroup.com/overview/costs-decline-renewable-sources-are-seeing-inexorable-rise-particularly-among-developing-0) are emerging and developing countries.
1.6.4.2.3. Con: A developing country which has rich fossil fuel deposits will see its economy [decline greatly](https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2017/03/cust.htm) if the world makes the shift away from these types of energies.
1.6.4.3. Pro: The use of fossil fuels is [necessary](https://futureoflife.org/2016/08/05/developing-countries-cant-afford-climate-change/) for developing countries to advance.
1.6.4.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.1.1.
1.6.4.3.2. Pro: Using LP gas instead of wood or other primitive forms of heat sources for cooking can help [save lives](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2021/02/01/how-fossil-fuels-are-saving-lives-in-developing-countries/?sh=52b2a1e2763f)(The data that we have is that around three billion people, which is not quite half the planet, don't have access to clean cooking. Now, in many cases, it is wood. It's also charcoal, it's coal. It's dung cakes. It's kerosene. You know, in some places I've seen people just burning rubbish because they need heat. So, it's a lot of things. It's not only wood, but wood is a big part of it and it's killing people.).
1.6.4.3.3. Con: Developing countries can still advance using [low- or zero-emission technologies](https://theconversation.com/developing-countries-can-prosper-without-increasing-emissions-84044).
1.6.4.3.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.1.4.
1.6.4.3.3.2. Pro: In order for Africa as a continent to transform socioeconomically, countries must innovate and [utilize green technologies](https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/august-2016/green-path-industrialization)(“Green industrialization is the only way for Africa…it is a precondition for sustainable and inclusive growth,” highlights the Economic Report on Africa 2016: Greening Africa’s Industrialization, published by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa \(ECA\). \n\nAfrican countries must take advantage of “new innovations, technologies and business models that use natural resources optimally and efficiently,” notes the 2016 ECA economic report.).
1.6.4.3.3.3. Con: Restricting fossil fuel usage may [stymie economic growth](https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/august-2016/green-path-industrialization)(However, it may be tough to sell Africa’s oil and natural gas exporters, like Angola and Nigeria, on limiting fossil fuel drilling. For both countries, oil accounts for more than 90% of exports and at least two-thirds of the national budget. The price of oil dropped from a peak of $100 a barrel in 2015 to about $50 by mid-June 2016. Before the oil price crash, even countries just discovering oil—like Ghana, Liberia and Sierra Leone—had anticipated a financial windfall from the sector.), as some countries depend on the export of these resources to stay competitive.
1.6.4.3.3.4. Con: Many developing countries [don't have enough resources](https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/august-2016/green-path-industrialization)(The main problem with green investments, the 2011 paper showed, was that costs, made worse by regulations, further stifled interest. Investing in environmentally friendly agricultural equipment, for example, “requires heavy upfront costs and the transition from the existing mode of production to the new one requires complementary technical innovation,” wrote Mr. Issoufou and Ms. Ouattara at the time.) to implement green technologies.
1.6.4.3.3.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.3.1.3.
1.6.4.3.3.4.2. Pro: -> See 1.5.6.4.1.1.
1.6.4.3.3.4.3. Con: Climate conferences across the world, including the UN climate conference in Bali, have developed new approaches to ensure the implementation of green technologies in developing countries. \([p. 1](https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1185&context=dltr)\)